If corporations want to enjoy the rights of citizens they should be held to the same standards as citizens in terms of responsibilities and acceptance of punishment for misdeeds.

A blatant example of the double standard that corporations enjoy is Pfizer.

Consider a citizen who commits felony fraud 4 times. Guess what? Said citizen would likely find himself in prison for the rest of his life after the 3rd strike and unable to commit a 4th. Why? To protect society, of course.

How much profit could said citizen enjoy while in prison? Hmn. That would be "none".

Now let's look at Pfizer, a corporation that has been convicted of felony fraud some 4 times in the last decade. Sure it paid fines as a cost of doing business, but was never threatened with the corporate equivalent of life in prison.

How can we protect society from corporations that willingly commit serious crimes in the pursuit of profits? Why, allow them to buy elections of course!

The Supreme Court have overlooked that a media world is not the same as a town square meeting... would they support the right of people with 2000 watt amps to drown out all others at a town square meeting?

If corporations now have a right to 'free speech', when do they get the vote? Why not? How many do they get?

The Supreme Court have confused the artificial construct 'legal person' with an actual person, for no better reason than that they both are called 'person'.

They aren't stupid: law reflects interests not 'justice', and the Supreme Court currently reflects the interests of those who appointed them: corporate America as represented by the Bushs.

Citing the right to freedom of speech, today the highest court of our nation ruled that corporations may spend as much as they like on political campaigns. To limit such spending would be forcing “restrictions on certain disfavored speakers,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in his majority opinion.

What kind of slippery slope have we started down in allowing corporations to be considered individuals, granting to them the rights guaranteed human beings under our constitution?

Human beings have consciences and are by nature moral beings. Can the same be said for corporations? Hardly. Corporations exist to generate and maximize profits. Making money is their ethic; the bottom line their moral compass. Can such an entity truly be considered a person?

Our constitution protects freedom of speech for people. It also gives people the right to vote, one person, one vote. Will Walmart now be eligible to register to vote? Will executives who cause corporations to fold soon be charged with negligent homicide or murder?

Our constitution begins, We the People, not we the corporations. Our courts’ duty is to us, We the People.

I thought judicial conservatives supported the original intent of law? That being said, I didn't realize our founding fathers thought corporations were actual citizens. I guess I must have read the wrong books.

Cheers!
More tax money to big business subsidies and more poor citizens that is not going to get taken care of. What a great concept! This is the way Democracy ends. Throw big words out like freedom and independance out there and everybody would die to vote for it. Now there is going to be even more influence by the big companies that already govern our lifes

In his 1944 book titled "The Great Transformation" Karl Polanyi predicted this outcome as the natural result of the deregulated free market system as the democratic process is captured by powerful corporations.

He predicted that this outcome will, as it has in the past, lead to Fascism. The signs are all clear that this is the next step for the USA. Democracy cannot survive the current levels of inequality and institutionalised capture and corruption. It is just a matter of time.

The president and Congress must reenact the Fairness Doctrine, or better yet institute an Equal Time doctrine, and re-regulate media ownership to oppose the awful power of wealthy corporations. However, the president and Congress will not provide the people any protection form relentless corporate lies. Everyone who is not a wealthy corporate fat cat needs to join ACORN-like organizations to partially offset the propaganda power unleashed on them.

Now, let us analyze this objectively. Suppose you are a politician. You need money. With this rule, how do you get money? You have to appeal to the big corporations, of course. Suppose you are against them? The corporations (ExxonMobile, GE, banks, etc) will just fund another candidate who supports the will of big business. Thus, all politicians are beholden to corporations, NOT people. Why? Because now big businesses, NOT the people, fund the campaign.

This is surly the biggest setback to democracy in the USA since the Jim Crow laws. What this means is this: The rich corporations now own politics.

The US constitution currently says: 'We the PEOPLE...' It is a bit outdated now. They should change it to: 'We the corporations...'

This is a humiliation to the millions of Americans (in the Revolution, the Civil War, Civil Rights, etc) who have worked to make the nation a democracy.

The Economist seems quietly pleased with this decision, apparently because America's campaign finance laws are too complicated. Complexity is indeed excessive, but a better solution would have been to exclude anything other than the voices and modest contributions of private (human) citizens from the democratic process. More simplicity, more democracy.

"The last presidential election was the most expensive ever." In the future, we will look upon those numbers as quaint and with nostalgia. Looking forward to all the new parties that will form though! The Googlecrat Party, Microsoftlicans, Exxonicrats, McDonaWhigs, and many, many more!

The only ones to blame are the American people who fall so easily for big business propaganda... Lobby politicians know they can talk them to or out of anything with the right amount of manipulation...They can make them kill in the name of life, torture in the name of freedom and get poorer in the name of American capitalistic values...The last supreme court decision will just make thing a lot easier for them.

"we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex... Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

The Economist considers this "a blow for free speech"? It is their right to express such views. And it is our right to refrain from funding a magazine so comfortable with allowing the wealthy to drown out the speech of others.

I was just about to renew my subscription to the Economist that ran out a couple of weeks ago. On principle, I will refrain. I have loved the Economists' ardent advocacy of democracy and judicious views. Yet, it seems that in the battle between capitalism and democracy, capitalism has won at the Economist - to the grave detriment of democracy.